Cmc heartland partners liquidating trust

Ohio 2001) (denying the innocent landowner defense because property was acquired knowing that it was contaminated); United States v. For example, an amendment to CERCLA could either redefine “government entity” to include the term “which acquired the facility by escheat, or through any other involuntary transfer or acquisition,” including acquisition of an estate in bankruptcy by a chapter 7 trustee. CERCLA’s objective “is to place ultimate responsibility for the costs of cleaning up Superfund sites on those who contributed to the problem.” Because bankruptcy is involved in this instance, the amended provision could provide that the government’s reimbursement come directly from the creditor’s share of the liquidated estate. 1992) (“[J]ust as we were reluctant to hold that WSDOT had a claim at the time of a release or threatened release of a hazardous substance, we are likewise reluctant to hold that a party becomes a known creditor upon the mere release or threatened release of a hazardous substance.”); United States v. Liability would shift to the debtor and PRP creditors who could then be sued by the government for reimbursement for cleanup charges.

cmc heartland partners liquidating trust-41cmc heartland partners liquidating trust-56cmc heartland partners liquidating trust-77

, it is necessary to explore other potential options. The innocent landowner defense matters because it determines whether the party in possession pays for the cleanup of the property. This addition providing for creditors who foreclose during a bankruptcy proceeding.

Following 1 (2012), Attachment/172c25e7-4019-4023-b0db-0aa94c28ec97/1) The landowner acquired property after all hazardous substances were disposed of at the facility[;]2) On or before the acquisition date, the landowner conducted all appropriate inquiries, as described below, into the previous ownership and uses of the facility consistent with good commercial or customary standards and practices;3) The landowner did not know, and had no reason to know, of the hazardous substance contamination at the time of purchase;4) The landowner exercised due care with respect to the hazardous substance concerned, taking into consideration the characteristics of such hazardous substance, in light of all relevant facts and circumstances;5) The landowner complied with all continuing obligations after acquiring the property, as described below; and6) The landowner took adequate precautions, meaning it took affirmative acts, against foreseeable acts or omissions of any such third party and the consequences that could foreseeably result from such acts or omissions. The new provision excluded “merely having the capacity to influence, or the unexercised right to control, vessel or facility operations,” requiring “actually participating in the management or operational affairs of a vessel or facility” in order to lose one’s exemption.

NJDEP was unhappy with the outcome and appealed the decision because it would force the state government to fund the cleanup. Looking to legislative history for both the Bankruptcy Code and environmental laws, the Court stated that Congress would have clearly expressed its desire “to grant the trustee an extraordinary exemption from nonbankruptcy law,” rather than allowing one to be inferred. 441, 444 (1904))).] failure to so qualify § 554 indicates that it intended the relevant inquiry at an abandonment hearing to be limited to whether the property is burdensome and of inconsequential value to the estate.” Justice Rehnquist also agreed with the bankruptcy court that “[t]he City and State are in a better position in every respect than either the Trustee or debtor’s creditors to do what needs to be done to protect the public against the dangers posed by” contaminated property. Ohio 2001) (“CERCLA [allows for] private parties who have incurred response costs in connection with the clean-up of a hazardous waste site [to] recover all, or some, of their costs.”).

1985) (“[CERCLA]’s primary purpose is ‘the prompt cleanup of hazardous waste sites’ . “[D]enial of abandonment requires the trustee to expend estate funds on the maintenance of essentially worthless property.” The New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (“NJDEP”) discovered that Quanta had violated a state environmental statute by storing the large quantity of carcinogenic oil on its property, and Quanta and NJDEP began negotiating the site’s cleanup.

As an addition to “[d]efenses of the estate,” the amendment could provide that “[t]he estate shall have the benefit of any defense available to the debtor as against any entity other than the estate, including statutes of limitation, statutes of frauds, usury, . While collection from the debtor may seem worthless because the debtor is in the middle of a bankruptcy proceeding, there are actually several mechanisms for recovery. Conversely, under abandonment, the title to the property revests to the debtor, and the estate no longer gains any value from ownership.

Last modified 22-Sep-2015 20:33